W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

RE: New AFTF draft.

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:14:47 -0700
To: "'John J. Barton'" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "'Carine Bournez'" <carine@w3.org>, "'Herve Ruellan'" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f501c25a0d$b8aa7a10$0100007f@beasys.com>

I think I disagree that attachments are resources from the soap module
perspective.  Regardless of the packaging or boxcarring mechanism, they are
representations in flight.  URI usage does not mean that attachments are
resources.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John J. Barton [mailto:John_Barton@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:43 AM
> To: David Orchard; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 'Christopher B Ferris'
> Cc: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; 'Carine Bournez'; 'Herve Ruellan';
> xml-dist-app@w3.org; 'Yves Lafon'
> Subject: RE: New AFTF draft.
>
>
>  From the perspective of the SOAP module the attachments are
> resources.  That is why we use URIs to name them.
>
>  From the perspective of the packaging module the attachments
> are representations.  It deals with bytes.
>
> The confusing concept from the Web point of view is "Compound
> SOAP structure".  This programming construct cannot be
> precisely defined: it may contain pointers that are not bound.  A
> compound SOAP structure is a logically a "view" rather than a
> physical region of memory or a packet of data.  The construct
> that can be defined is the message package.  That is why writing
> the spec for the package is easier that defining how the package
> looks from the SOAP layer.
>
> John.
>
> At 06:44 AM 9/11/2002 -0700, David Orchard wrote:
>
> >Seems to me it should be a representation rather than a
> resource.  Even
> >though the representation might be identified by a URI (and
> so be confused
> >with a Resource).  The web architecture is pretty clear that
> resources are
> >hidden by servers.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:04 AM
> > > To: Christopher B Ferris
> > > Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Carine Bournez; Herve Ruellan;
> > > xml-dist-app@w3.org; Yves Lafon
> > > Subject: Re: New AFTF draft.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > They're not resources, but representations of resources?
> > > Personally, I think part reads better than resource in
> this context.
> > >
> > > Jean-Jacques.
> > >
> > > Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> > > > Well, there's 'resource' which fits in nicely with the Web
> > > architecture.
> > > >
> > > > e.g.
> > > >         "Compound SOAP structure
> > > >          A compound SOAP structure consists of a primary
> > > SOAP message part
> > > >          and zero or more related resources."
> > > >
> > > > I would even go as far as to add: "identified by a URI".
> > >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm
> MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
> 1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
> Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 23:40:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT